why just file 498A 506 ? file cases agnst police & shift case to CBI!! one wife managed this in 1997 !!! finally this case was also quashed after MOOLAH payment (see later blogs)
* Wife files various cases (as per Judgement below !!)
* She starts with a 498a, 506 on husband, sis in law and sister in law's husband
* husband and sis in law seem to have been arrested etc , one gathers from the case below
* sis in law has preferred counter cases on the mode of arrest and the way the police behaved with her
* sis in law's husband had also complained about ill treatment
* Thereafter, public interest petitions were filed by political parties, a sitting M.L.A. and some other counsel. (all gathered from case below)
* now wife goes on to make further allegations against the POLICE !!
* yup the police .....!
* she wants the case to be transferred to CBI !!
* and the honourable court is kind enough to transfer case to CBI !!!!!
* the honourable court says and we quote "....We are entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I. to avoid embarassment to the police personnel, and for the other factors highlighted above....." !!!!
* Some years later (circa 2000) this case was quashed EVEN THOUGH the CBI OBJECTED TO quashing !!!
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
ORISSA HIGH COURT
ANJANA MISHRA VS INDRAJIT RAY (ADVOCATE GENERAL) ON 8 AUGUST, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997 II OLR 255
Author: S Phukan
Bench: S Phukan, A Pasayat
S.N. Phukan, C.J.
1. By this common order, we dispose of the present batch of writ petitions (except OJC 8296/97), as they are closely interlinked.
2. The starting point of the various cases is a report lodged by Mrs. Anjana Mishra (in short. 'Anjana')alleging dowry torture and other, abberations, which set law into motion. Her husband, Shri Subash Chandra Mishra (in, short. 'Subash'), sister-in-law Smt. Rajlaxmi Misra, (in short, 'Rajlaxmi',). and Ors. were named to be the culprits.
3. O. J. C. No. 8296 of 1997 was filed by Subash. Mrs. Anjana and Mr. Subash were married in February, 1987. Thereafter, marital discord arose. There was allegation regarding mental illness of Anjana and she was treated in some hospitals and mental asylums. A divorce petition was filed by Subash. who belongs to the Indian Forest Service which is still pending. A prayer was made in the writ petition to hand over investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I., for short). Other prayers were made for investigation into various aspects including harassment by police and illegal arrest of his sister-in-law Rajlaxmi and himself in complete violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court. He also prayed for compensation. Though by order dated 2.7.1997, the prayer for changing investigation was not accepted, after hearing learned Advocate General, other prayers like compensation for wrongful arrest etc. were kept alive.
4. Another petition, namely, O. J. C. No. 8639 of 1997, was filed by one Biswanath Hota, a member of the Indian Police Service, making various allegations about false implication and malicious action. There were allegations against the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range (in short. "DIG, Central Range'"), who was investigating the case filed by Mrs. Anjana against her husband and Ors.. A prayer was made that the said case be investigated by the C.B.I. The said case was disposed of with direction that the order passed on OJC No. 8296/97 would apply to the said petition.
5. A petition was sent by Rajlaxmi alleging infraction of statutory provisions relating to arrest, custody and improper and indecent behaviour of the DIG, Central Range. The same was registered as O. J. C. No. 9413 of 1997. Thereafter, public interest petitions were filed by political parties, a sitting M.L.A. and some other counsel. The foundation of those petitions was a first information report filed by Mrs. Anjana against Mr. Indrajit Ray, Advocate General (In short, 'Indrajit') making allegations of indecent behaviour. She also addressed a letter to this Court which was treated as a writ petition and registered as O.J.C. No. 9929 of 1997.
6. This Court directed Anjana and Ors. including the Secretary of Basundhara (opposite party No. 7 in O.J.C. No. 9801/97) to file affidavits. It may be noted that at the relevant time, Anjana was staying in Basundhara, a home for destitute women and children. In the first information report, which is available on record, it is stated by Anjana that the alleged incident took place on 11.7.1997. Thereafter, she went to various authorities and finally filed the F.I.R. on 19.7.1997 before the Officer-in-charge of Cantonment Police Station, Cuttack. In the petition/affidavit filed before this Court, she has made some allegations against Shri Pitambar Acharya, an Advocate of this Court, who was appointed as a special counsel to prosecute the case filed by her against her husband, Shri Acharya, who is present in Court today, has made a statement that an affidavit denying the allegation has been filed.
7. Today, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Surendranath Swain. DIG, Central Range, Orissa, who is conducting investigation of the case filed by Anjana against her husband and Ors.. Several statements made in the affidavit arc of serious nature. They touch credibility of Anjana's allegations.
An affidavit has been filed by the father of Anjana alleging exertion of pressure on him and his daughter to withdraw allegations against Indrajit. We need not burden this Judgment by quoting all such statements made. We are not stating the details of petitions, counter affidavits, rejoinder affidavits, etc. In the Judgment as it may reflect on the merit of the case.
8. We have heard all the learned counsel at length. We are of the opinion that it is a fit case to hand over the investigation to the C.B.I. Normally. we would have asked the affected party to seek remedy as available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'). The principles have been succinctly stated by the Apex Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and Ors. (1997 (3) SCC (Crimes) 303, But, some peculiar and unusual features have surfaced, which necessitate a departure. Allegations, counter-allegations, lack of confidence have been expressed so far as high placed police officials are concerned by the parties DIG. Central Range, who is the investigating officer in respect of the first case filed by Anjana. has been accused of exerting pressure on her to withdraw accusations in respect of the second case, by her father. In this background, observation of Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd v. Lannon, (1968) 3 All. E.R. 304, is relavant :-
"Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking, 'The Judge is biased'.
Substituted 'Judge' by 'Investigator', the effect would be the same. Considering the sensitivity of the matter and the likely effect on the credibility and reputation of many persons, investigation by C.B.I, appears to be ideal.
9. We, therefore, direct as follows :
(i) The Bidanasi Police-Station Case No. 64 of 1997 and Cantonment Police-station Case No. 67 of 1997 shall be investigated by the C.B.I. The first case was registered on the basis of F.I.R. filed by Anjana against her husband Subash, sister-in-law Rajlaxmi, and Ors.. The second case has been registered on the basis of the F.I.R. filed by Anjana against Indrajit. The Director of C.B.I, shall constitute a special cell for the purpose and nominate an officer to carry on the investigation. If so found necessary, a supervising officer may be nominated.
(ii) The Director General of Police, Orissa shall immediately hand over the case diaries of the aforesaid two cases to the officer nominated by C.B.I. All connected papers, medical reports, documents seized etc. shall be handed over to the said officer.
(iii) The officer nominated by the C.B.I, shall report to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who shall make available copies of petitions, affidavits, annexures, etc. filed in all the above writ petitions.
(iv) The petition addressed to this Court by Mrs. Rajlaxmi, copies of which were sent to the Director General and Inspector General, amongst others, shall be treated as an F.I.R., if not already done, and investigation shall be taken up by the C.B.I.. C.B.I, is directed to give an interim report to this Court only in respect of the allegations made by Mr. Subash and Mrs. Rajlaxmi regarding police harassment and disobedience of law as laid down by the Apex Court regarding arrest, more particularly of women, as the said writ petition has been kept pending for that limited purpose.
(v) Copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry by speed post to the Director, C.B.I, who shall entrust the matter to a special cell, as indicated above. Copies shall also be made available to the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Central), Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and all other learned counsel appearing for parties.
10. We make it very clear that this order shall not have any reflection on the professional integrity, capability and credibility of the police personnel of the State. Investigation made so far appears to have been done in a fair and non-partisan manner. We are entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I. to avoid embarassment to the police personnel, and for the other factors highlighted above. We make it clear that no expression on merits has been made by us. We have not taken note of the allegations regarding scope for manipulation and/or tampering of evidence of Indrajit as submissions have remained in the realm apprehension, without any material to buttres the stand. In this background it has to be remembered that an accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is established in trial. When an allegation of commission of offence is made, investigation is taken up to find out whether any material or evidence exists to substantiate the accusation. If on investigation, no material is seen to be available, the concerned authority may decide that there is no necessity to go for a trial. Purpose of investigation is not to somehow or other make out a case to go to trial. In appropriate cases, investigating agency may, on the basis of materials collected, come to a conclusion that accusations are frivolous, mala fide or motivated. Investigation means no more than the process of collection of evidence, or the gathering of material. (See Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India,. AIR 1994 SC 1271). The conclusion of guilt or otherwise is to be taken daring trial if held. That stage has not come in the cases at hand.
11. The writ petitions (except OJC 8296/97) are disposed of accordingly.
A. Pasayat, J.
12. I agree.
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist